Question 4
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29216
Received: 08/12/2014
Respondent: Ben Cofield
Replace buildings 2 to 24b at the Science Park with medium density development with carbon-neutral, radical, sustainable development.
I absolutely agree with this proposal and feel that further areas of housing could replace the older stock in the Science Park, especially at the entrance between buildings 2 and 24b, all of which could be demolished and create a medium density development adjacent to the guided bus. I would anticipate most of the houses would be sold to workers in the Science Park itself, which, in addition to the proximity of the guided bus stop, would make this a very sustainable development, which could also go for superior energy saving and radical technology construction methods, befitting its place at the Science Park.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29259
Received: 10/12/2014
Respondent: Management Process Systems Limited
The development has to take account of the wider economic area.
The development has to take account of the wider economic area.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29382
Received: 09/01/2015
Respondent: Ms Anne Swinney
This area should be included
This area should be included
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29427
Received: 17/01/2015
Respondent: Nicky Morland
Areas need to be cohesive
Areas need to be cohesive
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29454
Received: 20/01/2015
Respondent: Mr Stephen Hills
I'd rather the project focused on the east of Milton road first as the science park is already hugely succesful.
I'd rather the project focused on the east of Milton road first as the science park is already hugely succesful.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29498
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Hazel Smith
I would like to see more control over intensification of uses on the Cambridge Science Park, with mature trees retained, and the consequences for traffic on Milton Road considered alongside the intensification around the new station.
I would like to see more control over intensification of uses on the Cambridge Science Park, with mature trees retained, and the consequences for traffic on Milton Road considered alongside the intensification around the new station.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29533
Received: 23/01/2015
Respondent: Mrs Sasha Wilson
One area at a time
One area at a time
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29596
Received: 27/01/2015
Respondent: Cllr Anna Bradnam
It is important that new policies can be developed to PROTECT the existing mature trees, open space and landscape of the Cambridge Science Park.
It is important that new policies can be developed to PROTECT the existing mature trees, open space and landscape of the Cambridge Science Park.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29640
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Brookgate
Agent: Bidwells
The existing situation at Cambridge Science Park is markedly different to that at CNFE. Whilst it is important that the regeneration of the CNFE results in the area becoming a fully integrated and joined up part of Cambridge, the inclusion of the Science Park would require a dilution of the aims set out in the proposed AAP vision and objectives. The Science Park is more suited to coverage by the generic Local Plan, whilst the CNFE requires a specific and tailored set of aims and objectives to achieve its successful regeneration and redevelopment.
The existing situation at Cambridge Science Park is markedly different to that at CNFE. Whilst it is important that the regeneration of the CNFE results in the area becoming a fully integrated and joined up part of Cambridge, the inclusion of the Science Park would require a dilution of the aims set out in the proposed AAP vision and objectives. The Science Park is more suited to coverage by the generic Local Plan, whilst the CNFE requires a specific and tailored set of aims and objectives to achieve its successful regeneration and redevelopment.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29729
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: The Master Fellows and Scholars of the College of Saint John the Evangelist in the University of Cambridge
Agent: Savills
It is difficult to see the direct relevance of the Science Park to the significant development opportunities that exist further to the east.
Savills Planning Team in Cambridge are instructed on behalf of St John's College, Cambridge to make response to the Issues and Options Report on the CNFE having regard to the College's landholdings and land interests at St John's Innovation Park west of Cowley Road and east of Milton Road.
It is difficult to see the direct relevance of the Science Park to the significant development opportunities that exist further to the east. Whilst it is accepted that traffic entering and leaving the AAP area will affect traffic in and out of the Science Park, we are unsure why its inclusion is relevant. This is particularly the case when a policy in the new emerging South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already supports additional floorspace on the site.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29752
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd
Sufficient policy controls already exist for the Cambridge Science Park.
Sufficient policy controls already exist for the Cambridge Science Park.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29807
Received: 30/01/2015
Respondent: Trinity College
Agent: Bidwells
This objection is made on behalf Trinity College, Cambridge as the owners and custodians of the Cambridge Science Park (CSP).
The inclusion of CSP in the APP would be as a 'bolt on' to the otherwise clear and main function of the document with regard to CNFE. The CSP is a very different entity to CNFE; it is as an existing facility, the CNFE is a regeneration development.
Trinity College is supportive of the CNFE but there is no need to apply policies that are emerging as bespoke for CNFE as blanket policies to a wider area.
This objection is made on behalf Trinity College, Cambridge as the owners and custodians of the Cambridge Science Park (CSP).
The APP is written solely with the intention to inform and direct the Cambridge Northern Fringe East (CNFE) area. The objectives for the APP are set out at its paragraph 1.13 and clearly relate to the regeneration of CNFE. The various technical studies explained in the AAP are based on maps that relate only to the CNFE area.
The inclusion of CSP in the APP would be as a 'bolt on' to the otherwise clear and main function of the document with regard to CNFE. The CSP is a very different entity to CNFE; it is as an existing facility with existing occupiers, the CNF is a regeneration development.
Development at CSP is covered by South Cambridgeshire District Planning Policies. These include matters of permitted use of development, car and cycle parking, quality of design, landscape and sustainability.
There is no reason to add a layer of policy for further development at the CSP, the existing and emerging planning policies give the Planning Authority the ability to assess and only permit high quality and sustainable development.
Trinity College is supportive of the CNFE regeneration but there is no need, nor is it appropriate, to apply policies that are emerging as bespoke for CNFE as blanket policies to a wider area; therefore, the boundary of the AAP should not include the Cambridge Science Park.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29839
Received: 31/01/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Association of Architects
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
The Action Plan Area should be extended to include Cambridge Science Park and the triangular area south of Chesterton Sidings, as a minimum, in order to fully address site and station .
The East Area Action plan options need to be placed in the context of the wider area to make them legible.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29843
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: St John's Innovation Centre
We do not see the direct relevance of the Science Park to the significant development opportunities that exist further to the east. We accept that traffic entering and leaving the AAP area will affect traffic in and out of the Science Park, but we are unsure why its inclusion is relevant. This is particularly the case when a policy in the new emerging South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already supports additional floorspace on the Science Park site.
We do not see the direct relevance of the Science Park to the significant development opportunities that exist further to the east. We accept that traffic entering and leaving the AAP area will affect traffic in and out of the Science Park, but we are unsure why its inclusion is relevant. This is particularly the case when a policy in the new emerging South Cambridgeshire Local Plan already supports additional floorspace on the Science Park site.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29858
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridgeshire County Council
If redevelopment guidance for the Science Park is necessary, a separate AAP should be prepared at the appropriate time. The two areas are different in their nature with the Science Park being virtually wholly for employment uses (primarily high-tech and R&D) whilst a mix of uses is proposed for CNFE. In addition, the Science Park's status and image as a significant brand in itself should warrant its own AAP. If a combined AAP is undertaken, it may hamper implementation of the CNFE proposals as developer interest is likely to be focused on the Science Park.
If redevelopment guidance for the Science Park is thought necessary, a separate AAP should be prepared at the appropriate time as currently it is only Phase 1 of the Science Park that has potential for redevelopment. The two areas are different in their nature with the Science Park being virtually wholly for employment uses (primarily high-tech and R&D) whilst a mix of uses is proposed for CNFE. In addition, the Science Park's status and image as a significant brand in itself should warrant its own AAP rather than being part of another AAP for an area which has yet to create an identity for itself. If a combined AAP is undertaken for both the Science Park and CNFE, it could also hamper implementation of the CNFE proposals as developer interest is likely to be more focused on the Science Park, given its status.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 29977
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Orchard Street Investment Management LLP
Agent: Beacon Planning
An extension of the Area to include the Science Park is supported as this would provide comprehensive redevelopment principles to both sites, which are adjacent, benefit from the same transport hub, and share similar problems of access.
An extension of the Area to include the Science Park is supported as this would provide comprehensive redevelopment principles to both sites, which are adjacent, benefit from the same transport hub, and share similar problems of access.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30053
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Urban&Civic Ltd
Agent: David Lock Associates
The inclusion of the Science Park (Option A) may be beneficial in the long-term in delivering a more sustainable and well connected development and in achieving Draft Policy E/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. However, the feasibility of this within the Local Plan context should be further explored and it is important that the inclusion of this area should not delay the proposed investment and development on the remainder of the CNFE area.
The inclusion of the Science Park (Option A) may be beneficial in the long-term in delivering a more sustainable and well connected development and in achieving Draft Policy E/1 of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan. However, the feasibility of this within the Local Plan context should be further explored and it is important that the inclusion of this area should not delay the proposed investment and development on the remainder of the CNFE area.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30125
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Grosvenor Developments
Agent: AECOM
No additional comment
No additional comment
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30253
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Turnstone Estates Limited
Agent: Carter Jonas
No explicit need to include the Science Park. Not clear why CRC is included.
Turnstone does not consider that it is strictly necessary to include Cambridge Science Park (CSP) in the AAP area but it does need to be recognized as an important ongoing part of an R&D/Office cluster on the northern side of Cambridge, and this suggests to us that contrary to what the AAP Issues and Options document currently indicates, the focus for denser employment development should reflect this cluster at the CSP and the Cambridge Business Park as well as St John's Innovation Centre. At present, the AAP indicates denser development close to the new station which we do not consider makes sense as we explain elsewhere.
It is noted that the CSP extension appears to take in Cambridge Regional College (CRC). It is not clear why this would be appropriate.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30281
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Coulson Building Group
This will confuse the issue, the Science Park is established and virtually fully developed so the AAP could have little impact on the Science Park parting from constraining development until it is enacted.
This will confuse the issue, the Science Park is established and virtually fully developed so the AAP could have little impact on the Science Park parting from constraining development until it is enacted.
It would be illogical not to include it.
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30357
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge Past, Present and Future
The inclusion of the Cambridge Science Park enables the formulation of guiding principles and development management policies to help shape the intensification of development within the business park including the consideration of its connectivity to the east of Milton Road.
The inclusion of the Cambridge Science Park enables the formulation of guiding principles and development management policies to help shape the intensification of development within the business park including the consideration of its connectivity to the east of Milton Road.
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30380
Received: 04/02/2015
Respondent: Milton Parish Council
We would like to see more control over intensification of uses on the Cambridge Science Park, with mature trees retained, and the consequences for traffic on Milton Road considered alongside the intensification around the new station. Perhaps the Science Park is a more suitable area for some residential development now?
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30460
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Indigo Planning Ltd
TCE support the suggested boundary for the AAP area. It is important to include the consented railway station within this boundary and the Guided Busway extension linking to the new railway station.
TCE support the principle of extending the CNFE AAP area to include Option A.
The Cambridge Science Park area should also be included on the basis that tenants on the Science Park will be utilising the new station once it has been completed and, therefore, these journeys will need to be taken into account within the transport modelling which will be undertaken as part of the evidence base.
See attached document
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30489
Received: 02/02/2015
Respondent: Cambridge City Council
No. The Science Park is recognised globally in its own right, is well managed, and it is likely that its owners will seek to maximise opportunity without the need to be part of the CNFE AAP. It is unlikely that large scale redevelopment would be driven by including it in the AAP.
See attached document
Support
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30566
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Silke Scheler
Support.
I find all proposed options to be too restricted with the use of space. A mix of residential use, offices and industry would be preferable to give it a more natural feel. For example, leave the Nuffield Road industrial area and more residential use development further north. Also consider a more modular approach that allows to develop toward a future goal, but doesn't depend on things (like moving the water recycling centre) from the get go.
*******************
9) Objective 3 shouldn't get highest priority.
14) 11-13 are too divided in to use of space, a more natural mix of residential, offices and industrial would be better. Also, re-use as much of what is already there as possible.
15, 16, 17) No clear explanations, which means meaning will be defined later.
18b) Would destroy the feeling of that part of the city.
23c) Science Park should be independent.
24d) This should only be considered if there are no other options. Moving the businesses will be expesive, so leave them there and build the residential area somewhere else.
30e) Student accomodation should be integrated so they won't all be in the same area.
36) Whatever makes best sense for transport at the current stage of the project.
Object
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30618
Received: 03/02/2015
Respondent: RLW Estates
Agent: Boyer Planning
We do not support extension of the AAP boundary to include the Cambridge Science Park, both in procedural terms (see Question 3) and because this is felt to be unnecessary. Whilst the continued success and evolution of the Science Park is fully supported, it is noted in the Issues and Options consultation document that proposal Policy E/1 of the draft South Cambridgeshire Local Plan would facilitate this in any event.
See attached document
Comment
Cambridge Northern Fringe East AAP - Issues and Options
Representation ID: 30663
Received: 19/01/2015
Respondent: Shirley Fieldhouse
I am neutral regarding inclusion of Science Park in the consultation area.
See attached document